Giles ,'Touched'
[NAFDA]. This is where we talk about the CW series Supernatural! Anything that's aired in the US on TV (including promos) is fair game. No spoilers though — if you post one by accident, an admin will delete it.
Sometimes even I think I'm a little too invested. I was looking at promo pictures for an upcoming episode and (SPOILER!) Dean was wearing a plaid shirt I didn't recognize. And I thought, "Huh, Dean picked up a new shirt or two."
All the places where useful stuff should be in my brain? Like math skills or remembering measurement equivalents or historical facts? Taken up with Winchesters.
Ha! I was just trying to see if I could remember how many actors had played each demon (got caught up rebutting an oh-no-Charlie-has-a-vagina-she'll-die whine with did-Meg-get-a-reprieve-by-having-had-Sam's-dick? as an argument), and I was mad because I didn't feel confident in my numbers.
But, as I told my manager today, everyone used to know a lot about dinosaurs, but by the time we turned 18 we'd already forgotten most of this--it's not advanced age, it's just the passage of time...she bought it as my excuse for not remembering everything I knew two years ago...
STICK TO THAT STORY.
(Pictures of something will totally happen, promises--paid threesome PLEASE)
did-Meg-get-a-reprieve-by-having-had-Sam's-dick? as an argument)
Since when has Sam's dick ever worked that way?
My very point.
SPN bashing is so trendy and apparently thinking is not--fewer people argue now that the show can't write interesting women or ethnic minorities, so the issues is lifespan. And as long as Meg is "alive" I'm going to keep poking that bear. She's alive, and an antagonist, and FEMALE.
Reframe your position.
It's interesting--I think there are valid arguments (sexualisation of female characters, for instance) that no one seems to make--just the ones that are easier to poke holes in as long as they keep running through the recurring characters with Death's scythe. It's just...there are cheap truths about SPN:
No one remembers LotR tinhats, or Weasleycest, or well-written female or black characters, or the generally high mortality rate across the stats, or Dean not having cried much recently...
Of course there are consistencies, but some of the complainers seem to be stuck either right after the show lost Bela, Victor, Gordon, and the Harvelles the first or second time, or for some reason no other fandoms exist to point out that incest is actually ridic popular many places for reasons I am still curious about.
Yeah, wasn't River/Simon a thing during Firefly?
Male/female incest freaks me out in ways same-sex doesn't, although I don't know what that says about me.
sexualisation of female characters, for instance
I was just thinking the other day, not particularly about SPN but about TV in general, I really wish there were a lot more not!size 4 female characters with long hair and nice boobs. Most women don't look like that. Some do, yes, but not a majority. I get that TV is entertainment, and I like to look at pretty things as much as the next girl, but when it comes to representation, that's a factor that I wish wasn't forgotten so often.
Never mind what the show is, but being told about casting directors who used a BRA as part of their decision-making process (like, they had a standard bra for all the chicks of the week to fit into) makes me want to cry.
I mean, good lord, I'm not pretending to not like to look at pretty things either, but even in a job that involves visuals this much....that's single minded in a depressing manner.
I tried asking at IO9 if anyone knew what contributed to an incest kink, and to a person, everyone said "taboos are hot!" Now, I had made sure to say right off that I understand that counter-intuitive things like pain, bondage, rape, cheating, etc, I've all heard people give much more explanation for than I've heard for incest. Clearly people get off on taboos, but different taboos give people different rewards, or everyone would just like the same stuff--I'm curious about what this specific taboo gives people, and I don't know if it's because I'm in a fandom where even the people who don't partake take it for granted so it's not articulated, just accepted.
But the flip side is people who are nowhere near it, and think it's "those people" and they can't (or won't) begin to be able to get specific about it.
Right now I'm going with intimacy of some sort, but it's an unformed theory. It just feels like the first applicable adjective.
casting directors who used a BRA as part of their decision-making process
I want to ask what show that was, but I'm afraid it will break my heart.
Right now I'm going with intimacy of some sort, but it's an unformed theory.
I think that's pretty accurate in this case. Part of the appeal seems to be that Sam and Dean only have each other, and really only ever had each other, more or less. That their bond is very unique, and uniquely painful, and no one is ever going to truly understand them except each other.
I get so stuck on heartbreaking with that that I don't get as far as other people's titillation. Which, you know, beautiful cake. But I'm used to being able to see the logic of things I don't feel better than that, so it's frustrating.
Speaking of pictures, I just wandered back into Lily Fox's Supernatural gallery, and lord, is she brilliant. I can only hope that some of these people, many of these people, have achieved whatever they want to be doing with their art, because I can't see how talent could be an issue with her--the things she can do with so few lines. Look how few it took her to convey Dean...
Wow, she's fantastic. I had actually seen the "wing-friendly baby clothes" one before, too.
She doesn't always get Dean exactly, although she gets him a lot more often than most people. What is it about Jensen's face that makes him so hard to draw?
Jensen's face is the epitome of regularity. Fucking bastard. It's a very harmonious arrangement, but you can't exactly drop in signature hair or eyes or nose like Sam or Cas as code for his face.
I'd actually tumblred the wings shirt picture a long time ago, and for some reason people are reblogging it today, which brought her back to my attention, so I went back to her gallery, and I realised I'd also tagged one of her Community pictures: [link] It's a poor picture of Jeff, but a marvellous representation (rather than portrait) of Shirley. And stuff like that background and the colour of the lines are the simple sorts of flourishes that are completely beyond me.